The OP obviously didnt see the Wales V Argentina game, when the ball handling skills and footwork of Shane Williams and Stephen Jones was on show.

An incident in an England international a season or 2 ago really summed up why I do not watch Rugby union that often

England were leading by maybe 4 or 5 points.The ball was trundled into the right hand corner by the England forwards and there was a ruck/maul/pile in or whatever it was. I think the name of it changed 4 or 5 times whilst I was watching.

Matt Dawson ( or Austin Healey ) or one of the other dancers or skaters was doing the commentary. His comment was that the game was now over because England could just wind down the clock using their forwards keeping the ball in the corner.

[size=150THERE WERE OVER 8 MINUTES LEFT ON THE CLOCK[/size

I went into the kitchen, made a brew and came back into the living room. Dawson ( or Healey ) were right - the ball hadnt moved more than 2 metres.

What a spectacle - swing low my backside

We might have some things in common with Union but the ability to wind the clock down by effectively killing the ball and preventing any play isn't one of them. If RU fans are happy that forwards can grind their way forward/sideways when recycling the ball over and over again then that's fine.

The extraordinary thing is that RU fans are happy with this type of stuff.

Because they look at the sport in a different way, it's not a sport designed for entertainment which league was. The whole way RL has evolved as a sport was to make it a product which would appeal to spectators, because RL has never had any sort of financial backing so its relied on spectators coming through the turnstiles, or in recent years signing up to pay TV channels.

One big difference I believe between RU and RL is that almost every RU fan has got into the sport by playing the game, where there are a lot of RL fans who have never played the game, which is why RL always has more 'family appeal'. I don't think you would get into RU if you hadn't either played it at school or come from a family background/social circle where it's played.

If you've played the game you can understand whats involved with scrummaging, rucks/mauls, line outs etc (stuff which RL fans routinely mock, which is fair enough), what goes into forward play, building pressure and territory, kicking for territory etc. RU is basically a battle of attrition looking to exploit the advantage of position and pressure (through kicks if necessary), teams who have traditions of playing fast open rugby eg some of the past great French teams or All Blacks are admired for their style but the whole game isn't designed for that type of rugby, whereas league is, even things like going to summer rugby was to promote the best visual product for spectators. So on those terms RL is always going to be streets ahead in marketability to new audiences and for spectator excitement (though as a sport we do a very poor job of making the most of this)

I prefer RL by a long way however I don't see it as my place to judge people for liking RU or to slag their sport off, because a lot of people like it and you can't argue against the high attendances it gets. I like cricket, I love Test cricket but only have a passing interest in one day cricket, there are plenty of people who say Test cricket is boring and one day cricket is far more exciting but to me Test cricket is far more interesting....I guess RU fans see the comparison of RU and RL the same way...

union is nearly as boring as formula one which isn't a sport it's driving a car.they both do though attract crowds but as was stated earlier it's a matter of choice,i love most sports but i do not enjoy the negativity of union so i simply don't watch it.